Re: so the question is: why have the linking exception instead of LGPL

2006-03-07 Thread Dalibor Topic
On Tue, Mar 07, 2006 at 05:18:12PM +0100, Philippe Laporte wrote: > Hi, > Why did Classpath ever go with that esoteric linking exception > instead of simple LGPL? > > I can think of several reasons, but "I wanna know God's thoughts, the > rest are details"...just kidding :-) Because the LGP

Re: so the question is: why have the linking exception instead of LGPL

2006-03-07 Thread David Daney
Philippe Laporte wrote: Hi, Why did Classpath ever go with that esoteric linking exception instead of simple LGPL? I can think of several reasons, but "I wanna know God's thoughts, the rest are details"...just kidding :-) IIRC many FSF runtime libraries have this exception. My interpr

so the question is: why have the linking exception instead of LGPL

2006-03-07 Thread Philippe Laporte
Hi, Why did Classpath ever go with that esoteric linking exception instead of simple LGPL? I can think of several reasons, but "I wanna know God's thoughts, the rest are details"...just kidding :-) Best Regards, -- Philippe Laporte Software Gatespace Telematics Första Långgatan 18 41

Re: so the question is: why have the linking exception instead of LGPL

2006-03-07 Thread Anthony Green
On Tue, 2006-03-07 at 17:18 +0100, Philippe Laporte wrote: > Why did Classpath ever go with that esoteric linking exception > instead of simple LGPL? To enable static linking with proprietary software without the LGPL's re-link requirement. AG